Multiple audiences. The Christians, indicating "No, this space is not JUST for you"; the potentially persuadable (particularly younger generations) "there's other people with other ideas"; and yes, the other atheists.

DerAppie: No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.

That can be turned around; "No matter how you dress them up, complaints are simply trying to make atheists go sit in the back of the bus."

DerAppie: I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Sorry. Madison argued it rather more eloquently; "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together".

Also, "such a problem" seems to require it be argued all the way from an is-ought bridge, which would appear a pretty far moving of goalposts. If you're going to demand that, I'd have to insist we start with more basic propositions still and dredge out the P's and Q's. Nobody would appreciate that.

cassanovascotian:When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.

a. I have not done so. I have defined myself as categorically against religion in government. Is it that you are unwilling to recognize that difference, or unable? (Perhaps Dimensio was right about you?)

b. Who elected you "Arbiter of Credibility"? The events described in the article follow my rationale to a T. If they upset you, you may want to re-align your own worldview instead of attacking mine.

DerAppie:The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

I'll tell you what: When people like Michelle Bachmann are invariably laughed out of politics at the local level, we can start relaxing on the issue like the Dutch can. At the moment, we are not even in the same ballpark of "reasonable behavior" as any of the European countries.

I drunk what:no, no i'm the one prostylitizing my non-belief and pretending that i can care about gay marriage and abortions

I was only noting that he/she/it used the exact same non sequitur verbage in a post replying to you just before. I guess if you have a hammer, everything looks like a screw.

Yeah, some of the usual endgame suspects are here, but some of the visitors are looking like a pretty sorry bunch this time around.

DerAppie:Which is why everything that could lead to the slightest of friction needs to be banned preventively?

You must not understand the level of influence fundamentalist christians have held over our national political elections for the last 30-40 years. It's bad here. Really. Close to half the country wants to drag everyone back to the early 1900s. And with the decline of their numbers in the younger generations, and the political backlash resulting from their party's recent economic blunders, the fear of losing their hold is causing them to become more shrill and aggressive than I would have thought possible 20 years ago.

It would be like killing a fly with a howitzer, but I DO still enjoy it when someone takes up your gauntlet. It tickles me when I see someone come to the realization that in a rational system, even "faith" can be quantified and given defined boundaries.

TFA: "If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they're free to do that - but they can't interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum," said William Becker, attorney for the committee.

They're not. At least no more so than you're interfering with their right to speech.

"Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive."

LoL. Yes, Christmas will surely die without your nativity scene.

I have to say though, despite my disagreement with the Christian fellows argument, as an atheist I'm not very impressed with this sort of activity. Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends, you're just acting like a douchebag to a bunch of people who want to celebrate their holiday. Yes I understand that they're in a privileged situation and already have a de facto monopoly on the holiday season, but that's beside the point. There are better ways to go about this without acting like a knob who is just out to ruin people's fun.

Personally, I'd have used the space to make educational displays about the winter / solstice holidays and myths of other world religions, both contemporary and from antiquity. It still gets the point across -- their nativity scene sitting next to Dionysus in the Brumalia makes it clear that it's just another of many myths -- but it is more educational, less prickish, and completely immune to the argument that you're stifling religious speech. In fact you're contributing to it. Plus, maybe the odd Zoroastrian (Yalda is suspiciously similar to Christmas, celebrating Mithra being born to a virgin), Hopi, or Hindu who walks by would appreciate being represented. Hell, it might even be cool enough to usurp the nativity display as a new and better tradition.

Z-clipped:cassanovascotian: When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.

a. I have not done so. I have defined myself as categorically against religion in government. I

ORLY? let's take a stroll through some of your comments:

Z-clipped:Oh look, religious people acting like petulant children, with no one to blame for their loss of privileges but themselves.

Z-clipped:OK. I call it "offensively arrogant, presumptuous and self-involved".

Z-clipped:Then you're just as irrational and shortsighted as the religious dickheads that you're pretending not to be one of.

Z-clipped:Any attempt to paint that as "militant", "aggressive", "insulting" or "trolling" comes from an ignorant, unconsidered point-of-view...Z-clipped: cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

OK, be my guest. No one in TFA is doing that,

I can think of one person...

that's just in this thread alone.

sooo... still trying to claim that you only want to avoid having religion pushed on you, and aren't trying to be openly insulting to people who just happen to believe something different from you on their own time? sure. Keep telling yourself that.

Z-clipped:though we may not be progressing as quickly as some of us would like, these issues are under control and we can look forward to their resolution in the reasonably near future.

Under Control!? fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.

Let me make this clear to you: when you make the conflict about people's personal beliefs you're attacking something that they can't and won't change, and will get defensive about. You legitimize their persecution complex, and force them to dig their heels in and rally behind whatever politician is going to give them a feeling of protection. Eventually the above issues will be addressed, but because of people like you it's going to take a whole lot longer than it needs to, and while you continue to double-down on this petty little crusade of yours, you make it more difficult for people like me to deal with the problems that actually matter. You force me to waste time and energy explaining to the same conservative demagogues that "I'm not one of those people."

I am sick to farking hell of self-righteous proselytising over shiat that doesn't matter -and lately, it aint coming from the catholics and fundies -it's coming from you buddy; atheism isn't a religion, but you have embodied all of the features organized religion that you found so contemptible in the first place.

cassanovascotian:sooo... still trying to claim that you only want to avoid having religion pushed on you, and aren't trying to be openly insulting to people who just happen to believe something different from you on their own time? sure. Keep telling yourself that.

You don't read too well, do you?

Every one of the statements you quoted me on was bashing either proselytism in general, or the behavior of the jerks in TFA (who complained about other groups getting equal time, and then vandalized their displays).

Not a single one of them bashes religion in general. Your histrionics are completely misplaced. I'm going to write this one more time, and maybe it will get through your thick skull: I am against religion intervening in government. In all forms, always, no matter how large or small the forum. What the ever-loving fark is your philosophical problem with that position? I'm getting sick of you slinking around the shadows on this point. Quit hiding behind "other issues", man up, and discuss the topic at hand.

cassanovascotian:Let me make this clear to you: when you make the conflict about people's personal beliefs you're attacking something that they can't and won't change, and will get defensive about.

This conflict isn't about beliefs, it's about actions. When you figure that out, maybe you'll be able to debate me, instead of having to divert the discussion to red herrings and strawmen.

cassanovascotian:Under Control!? fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.

You have a shorter attention span than a Fox News viewer if you think we can't talk about more than one issue at a time. There should be no religious interference in government. Period. It's not a negotiation. I'm not willing to capitulate on any aspect of that issue, just because you think it happens to be benign. You're wrong- Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are not benign. "Teach the controversy" is not benign. The Ten Commandments in the courthouse lobby is not benign. Opening city council meetings with a traditional christian prayer is not benign. Having a portion of the town budget set aside for a Christmas pageant is not benign. And one religious group vandalizing the holiday displays of others who were only exercising their rights to equal time it not benign. These all stem from the same presupposition: that religion belongs in government.

cassanovascotian:You legitimize their persecution complex, and force them to dig their heels in and rally behind whatever politician is going to give them a feeling of protection.

Fark that. They've been dug in for generations. Atheists have been trying to reason with religious people for hundreds of years, and have been ridiculed, demonized, ostracized, tortured, and burned at the stake for their trouble. It's not the reasonable christians that are the problem. They're fine with having a Wiccan display next to Jesus' manger in the park. It's the unreasonable ones that are the problem. They go to town meetings and push for government legitimization of their faith. They beat gay people in dark alleys. They rip the chapter on evolution out of their kids' Biology texts. They vandalize displays that contradict their own beliefs. They're not reasonable. They don't play fair. They behave like children, and they should be treated like children.

What you don't seem to get is, THEY'RE LOSING. We're making progress. The laws are on our side. The younger generation is on our side. Gay marriage will be legalized in every state during your lifetime. DADT is history. The courts continue to rule against Creationists at every turn. Environmental issues were one of the current president's major campaign pillars. The majority is no longer tolerating religious hate speech from politicians like Todd Akin. The non-religious are a continually increasing presence in politics. In order to maintain their energy, religious extremists are being forced to ramp up their rhetoric past the point of what is socially acceptable to the general public. That's their death knell. So let them dig their heels in all they want... the harder they do, the less legitimacy they'll have when the dust settles.

cassanovascotian:and while you continue to double-down on this petty little crusade of yours, you make it more difficult for people like me to deal with the problems that actually matter.

Get over yourself, Mr. Greatest American Hero. What great strides have you made to legitimize Climate Change in the national consciousness today? How many Middle Eastern wars have you prevented? We all fight the fights that matter to us in each particular context. Fark you for assuming you understand everything about the situation of the atheists in TFA, and judging their particular actions as petty. Just because a thing is small, doesn't make it unimportant. Again, this article represents an example (in real life) that supports MY position, not yours (which is imaginary). Christians couldn't play nice with others, so they lost their privileges. They had the opportunity to exercise tolerance, didn't, and are completely to blame for the outcome.

Look: When I was a kid in high school, I refused to say the Pledge, because it made me uncomfortable for several reasons. I didn't shout about it, or make a scene- I wasn't trying to get attention or buck authority for the sake of bucking authority. I just didn't want to do it, because I didn't think it was right. It caused me no end of trouble with my teachers, and got me thrown out of more than one classroom. My life would have been much easier if I had just said it every morning like everyone else. I didn't start a movement, or stop the Pledge from being said, but I'm proud that I took a stand, because some things, even though they're small and may seem petty to an outsider, have important principles behind them that shouldn't be compromised.

life is way more fun without all that religious garbage burdening our society

Z-clipped:These all stem from the same presupposition: that religion belongs in government.

like antitheism? atheism? agnosticism? scientism? i'mokyou'reokism?

//trying to imagine a government without philosophical beliefs...

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... ~brainwashing cultist

O NOES, we're too late, even the founding of this country has been corrupted by the taint of religion...

we should start over, except this time we should create an atheist system of government, because they have such a wonderful track record throughout history :)

then we can create a perfect utopia, free from any burden of morality and other such nonsense

I drunk what:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... ~brainwashing cultist CREATIONIST

Z-clipped:We're making progress. The laws are on our side. The younger generation is on our side. Gay marriage will be legalized in every state during your lifetime. DADT is history. Environmental issues were one of the current president's major campaign pillars.

See how you used the word "We" there?... that's the problem. that's the issue. You're pretending to care about these issues while contributing nothing but sabotage to their progress. You can be angry at religion all day, but when you hijack these legitimate causes and derail them -that's when I have a problem. Notice how this conversation started when I said to one of you angry atheists:

"Hey buddy, why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns" ? and what was the response I got?

I drunk what:I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Right, so, ok, so much for priorities...

Z-clipped:We all fight the fights that matter to us in each particular context.

So everything is important in its own way? No. Issues that have tangible impact on human welfare and suffering matter. Your crusade doesn't. You like to think that it does because you want some kind of affirmation for your world-view -or who knows, I don't really care.

sigh ... I've got other shiat to do, and this back-and-forth isn't going anywhere. I'll just say it one more time: fight your crusade if that's what's really important to you. Just don't pretend that that other shiat matters to you. And don't use the word "we" to describe progress on issues like climate change and LGBT rights, etc. cuz you aint one of the "we", and you aint helping.

and as for having my priorities in the right place, I am quoting the Word of God verbatim, so yeah i'd say that IDW has his priorities

however i am quite confused as to what yours are:

cassanovascotian:why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns

[inigo.jpg] those words, i don't think they mean what you think they mean

we can bicker about human concerns all day, however, until you morans start establishing standards-def.s., etc.. about why your theology (or at least philosophy) conflicts with others we aren't going to make ANY progress

cassanovascotian:So calling people "petulent children" isn't in any way an insult?

not when it is true

just in case you haven't figured out what one of the major problems with society today, is the fact that we have many petulent children running around disguised in adult bodies, running-ruining everything around them

and this has been going on for generations now (starting with the ME generation and fulfilled in the current emo-snowflakes), do you suppose it will start getting better? or somehow magically resolve itself..?

Sword translates more like Épée in Greek. So it has a much more deeper meaning when you think of it.Interestingly, a little known fact is that at the Council of Ephesus it was decided that they would remove the sections of the Bible describing various fencing matches between Jesus and Bartholomew. True story.

Hebrews 4:12For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Ephesians 6:17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.

Annnnnd you promptly avoid the point AGAIN! Is the stupidity an act? Are you trolling? Have I been taken in? You will do absolutely anything to avoid addressing my actual position on this matter, even if I put it in bold type. Should I try large bold caps? I AM AGAINST RELIGION INTERVENING IN GOVERNMENT. For fark's sake man, don't be such a coward. If you have a problem with that position, address it directly. You're just making shiat up and pretending I said it.

You don't know thing one about how I spend my energy when it comes to making the world a better place for people to live in, and you're incredibly arrogant to pretend you do. I'll ask again: What do you think YOU do that is so productive? You think that because you can perform basic intellectual triage that you're somehow helping people?

cassanovascotian:You're pretending to care about these issues while contributing nothing but sabotage to their progress.

Uh huh... So I guess your "arguing on Fark" crusade is ever so much more productive than my "arguing on Fark" crusade? Hey, there's a thread about Climate Change on the main page... I'm sure if you hurry you can wrap the whole thing up by lunch.

Yes, by all means... STFU and GBTW.Your logical contortionist routine is getting tiresome.

I drunk what:and this has been going on for generations now (starting with the ME generation and fulfilled in the current emo-snowflakes

I actually find the current crop of young people to be far less self-involved and much more socially conscious and civilized than the other living generations. It's part of the reason I quit a rather lucrative career to go back to school so I could be a teacher. They deserve better than they have right now, and they're going to have to be a hard-working and innovative bunch if they're going to undo the damage that their parents have done to the world. I honestly have high hopes for them.

I drunk what:vactech: But I think you've missed the complex simile He was trying to convey here.

*ears open*

That's good, that your ears are open to Jesus, but you need to open your heart IDW. But you are not "there" yet my friend.

Firstly, you are going about things backwards. You don't need to be so technical about God. We need not, put God in a test tube, boil Him in a flask amongst a bunsen burner, relocate Him with test tub holders, remove Him with tongs, observe for 24hours in a well microtitration plate and then spin him on a centrifuge.

Secondly, we needn't concern ourselves with earthly logic when trying to understand Him. Nor burden, our limited human minds trying to decipher His meaning through so called "classical reasoning".

Keep this quote in mind:

"There is one place where you have not looked, and it is there, only there where you will find the master." - John Knox, 1592

I drunk what:you stumped google, so you may need to elaborate on your source and more about the context of that quote

See. This is why you fail. Do you filter God through google to get your answers? Do you format32 HIM to fit your narrow world view? Why don't you get with the "program", son? Come in for the "big win"?

Z-clipped:It would be like killing a fly with a howitzer, but I DO still enjoy it when someone takes up your gauntlet. It tickles me when I see someone come to the realization that in a rational system, even "faith" can be quantified and given defined boundaries.

It's almost as amusing how shocked some atheists are to realize that they do take some points on "faith" -- though not necessarily the particular points (nor anywhere near as much) that Christians claim.

Gawdzila:Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends

There's anecdata giving existence cases; whether it's a net gain is more questionable.Are you aware of any sociological studies measuring the impact?

cassanovascotian:fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.

They're actually related. The Christmas displays in the public square, as with maintaining "in God we trust" on the coins and "under God" in the pledge, are attempts to bolster the notion that the United States is a "Christian Nation"... in which case, homosexuality should be a capital offense, there's no worries on climate change because God promised not to destroy humanity again and Jesus is going to be back real soon, which is why the Mid-east is going up right on schedule so there's nothing to do about that either. Fortunately, this level of full-blown nuttery is rare, but it is more common among those who are pushing religion into government territory. By opposing them on even the small issues, it makes it more difficult for them to push the larger narrative, as they have to justify it from more basic propositions.

Or at least, that's one hypothesis.

Z-clipped:What you don't seem to get is, THEY'RE LOSING. We're making progress.

Some. The demographics are shifting, at least. It's not clear the attitudes are much, beyond that.

cassanovascotian:Notice how this conversation started when I said to one of you angry atheists: "Hey buddy, why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns" ? and what was the response I got?I drunk what: I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Er... I drunk what isn't an Atheist; he's a Christian. 7th Day Adventist offshoot group, maybe? I don't recall with particularly high confidence. Anyway, not everyone on Fark is an atheist. Jumping to conclusions about religious identification is a really good way to look very silly.

abb3w:Gawdzila: Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends

There's anecdata giving existence cases; whether it's a net gain is more questionable.Are you aware of any sociological studies measuring the impact?

No, although I think that kind of misses the point.It almost certainly doesn't make Christians happy with you, and as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor. It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.

For an empiricist? Not really. Especially given the number of studies that have turned up over time with counter-intuitive results contradicting the common sense "be nice" type assertions.

If you want me to take you seriously when you argue about social engineering methods, I'm afraid I expect you to be willing to back the argument with social science. Of course, this is Fark, so most people aren't inclined to the effort. However, if you try, you might at least learn something solid on the topic, and possibly be able to teach me about it; and worst case, you learn a bit more about how to research using Google Scholar or the like.

Gawdzila:It almost certainly doesn't make Christians happy with you, and as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor.

Short term? Yes, if that's your only criterion.Longer term? You're neglecting the potential contribution to changing people's minds over time, which might allow reducing one source of larger social disharmonies.

Gawdzila:It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.

Then by all means, keep being nice. (It's one reason why I save outright rudeness for very special occasions.) Contrariwise, I believe there are sociological studies suggesting in general that replacing prejudice with acceptance is associated to increased awareness of how many people in one's social circle fall into the category. Such assertive behavior lets people know that atheists are out there, and disapprove of such privileged gestures signalling the likes of them are an out-group -- tending to provide a negative reinforcement to that behavior.

Yes, it does.You're so busy being condescending and yammering about the thing you wanted to make the discussion about -- the overly-broad topic of "being nice and accommodating vs. being an assertive d*ckbag", that you apparently overlooked that the entire point of my post was that you can be assertive without being a complete douche. You're so glued this idea that changing people's minds is somehow antagonistic with promoting harmony -- as if you somehow have to exchange one for the other like social currency -- that you're failing to see the actual point I'm trying to make.

People are obstinate. If you come at them with the argument "NO YOU'RE WRONG" they will push back, almost no matter what it is you're saying. If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them. And I know there is empirical evidence for this. So get out of here with your "learn to use Google Scholar" bullshiat; I'm a physicist, I know how peer reviewed science works. You, on the other hand, should perhaps learn to recognize new approaches to problems instead of trying to trying to trim and cram them into whatever dusty, biased old framework you've got mouldering in your thought processes.

abb3w:It's almost as amusing how shocked some atheists are to realize that they do take some points on "faith" -- though not necessarily the particular points (nor anywhere near as much) that Christians claim.

I agree completely. It was illuminating for me personally in this way the first time I saw you work your way through it some years ago. I owe at least a small measure of my current sense of perspective to you, so thanks.

abb3w:Some. The demographics are shifting, at least. It's not clear the attitudes are much, beyond that.

Along with the demographic shift on social issues, there's also a relative decline in numbers among people who identify as religious, is there not? Or perhaps I should say, a growing percentage that identify as non-religious?

Gawdzila:as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor.

Well, there's the kind of harmony that comes from one entity having complete control of the other, and the kind that is born out reciprocal respect for equivalent strength. At the moment, I see atheists and christians in the US as being in an uncomfortable place between the two.

In the grand scheme of things, atheists' modern battle for equality with theists has been about as benign as it gets for a religious conflict. No bombings, no riots, no barricaded streets, no mass exodus, no violence in the name of "the movement"- it's pretty much been a slow, steady (almost milquetoast, really) assertion of rights and opinions, mostly all taking place within the legal framework of the nation. A lot of it has been about little things, like in TFA. And these actions have been met with rhetoric that is wildly hyperbolic, like the "War on Christmas" nonsense.

I don't know how much "nicer" you can really expect atheists to be about this, unless you're subtly pointing to the idea that they should just give in on every front, and become christians on top of it (and I don't think you are). When one group is willing to characterize literally any action counter to their agenda as militant, I think "turn the other cheek" loses some of its moral impact.

The main sticking point seems to be that people are largely culturally blinded to the aggression that religion imposes on the non-religious, and the enormous social imbalance between the two positions. People who see atheists as rude and militant when they're really just trying to claim equitable social and political ground generally suffer from this blindness.

Gawdzila:People are obstinate. If you come at them with the argument "NO YOU'RE WRONG" they will push back, almost no matter what it is you're saying. If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them.

Theists have been beating atheists with a proverbial stick for generations. Atheists could pull out a stick of their own and fight back, but instead, they're asking the theists to stop hitting them. You seem to be arguing that this is too rude and aggressive, and that they should instead obliquely imply that the theists might get fewer arm cramps if they swing their stick more slowly.

Sorry about that. The appearance of condescension is mostly due to forcing a profound degree of disagreement through a screen of civility. More forthright expression would be ruder than that.

Gawdzila:you apparently overlooked that the entire point of my post was that you can be assertive without being a complete douche

Ah.

For that: the assorted ad campaigns show no matter how inoffensive the atheists are in asserting themselves, the Christians are outraged. Any reaction at all is going to be considered to be douchery of some form, by people reacting to motes with beams in their own eyes.

Getting into a full dissection of manners, social norms, and the is-ought bridge seems beyond the scope of a dying thread. But I'll note that given there's room for further escalation, it was also at most incomplete douchery; and the hyperbole leads to my (perhaps unfairly) discounting your argument as inaccurately calibrated.

Gawdzila:If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them.

However, human learning apparently requires triggering cognitive dissonance or mass repetition; either will be considered douchey to some degree, the latter is impractical, leaving the former putting limits to the benefit of avoiding confrontation. Empirically, there are occasions where a more confrontational approach can be more more effective.

Z-clipped:Along with the demographic shift on social issues, there's also a relative decline in numbers among people who identify as religious, is there not? Or perhaps I should say, a growing percentage that identify as non-religious?

The demographics are shifting on degree of religious identification, with irreligiosity growing relatively rapidly. The shift on issues seems mostly correlated to the religious shift, with some exceptions. (Young folk are unkeen about abortion over defects. There's probably other issues that I'm forgetting.) Within degrees of religiosity, the attitudes seem pretty near constant.

Since before 1970, the irreligious percentage of "Nones" has apparently been growing roughly (with some oscillations) on a logistic curve with birth cohort, circa 27 year time constant, 2007 cohort expected midpoint. Also, I think we might be in seem in a slight upsurge for most cohorts -- the irreligious equivalent of the rise of the "religious right". The pendulum may eventually swing back a bit on that... but the amplitude is much smaller than the underlying logistic shift.

These threads have the same people, copping the same poses, selling the same talking points, all trying to convince the other that there most certainly is / is no God and the theists and the atheists farm their respective back forty of sniffy dismissiveness and eye rolling, and the waves crash to the shore, and the sun rises and they don't really know, I don't really know and neither do you. So, there's that.

Gawdzila:It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.

you know it's talk like this that sets us back 100s of years, i wasted half of my class (of christianity) the other day arguing with "xians" about the difference between morality and just being civil-polite

the sooner we distinguish the two the better of the world will be

abb3w:Of course, this is Farka sign of the times, so most people aren't inclined to the effort.

meh

abb3w:For that: the assorted ad campaigns show no matter how inoffensive anyone is in asserting themselves, the xians are outraged.

apparently the age of emo-snowflakes began within our own beloved generation X, of course back in those days we told the nancies to 'man up' but as we all know that was quickly replaced with the cultural norm of telling men that it's ok to be effeminate and ironically the women had to 'man up' because there was no one left with enough balls to handle the responsibilities of reality

I drunk what:i've spent weeks trying to convince xians, that speaking the Truth =/= being offensive

If they're offended by someone speaking an unpalatable truth, I'd think it says more about the listener than the speaker.

I drunk what:let me just put it this way, i have actually referred to you (without naming names) as a person who understands significant parts of Christianity better than they do

The Pew study indicated that for basic knowledge about Christianity, white mainline evangelicals average are a little more informed than the average atheist/agnostic, but I'm likely an outlier. More significantly, the edge is modest; there's not enough data easily turned up from Pew to be exact, but I'd guess the average such evangelical could expect at least one-in-six chance on running into an atheist more knowledgeable than them... and your crew is below the overall average. Factors associated with more knowledge about religion in general include more education, more religious education, reading about religion more frequently, and disfavoring a literal interpretation of scripture. I suspect the Church of Christ leans more to the literal end of the spectrum -- though correlation isn't causation, I suspect the root of that literal mindset may be the problem.

Of course, there's some difference between "knowledge" and understanding. Matthew 7:16-20?

I drunk what:completely glossing over whether or not identification has any correlation with knowledge-ability

Depends on how you define measures for those, and there are some confounds that weaken the correlation. However, since you seem to object to that gloss: first pass, irreligiosity tends to be correlated to intelligence, education, and socio-economic index. Second pass, how someone looks at the Bible is key: the more likely someone is to consider the Bible as Fable generally correlates positively to measured intelligence (though causation seems likely the other way around), in which case intelligence correlates to irreligiosity; but for those who don't consider it thus, religiosity increases with intelligence... making the overall correlation kind of impressive.

We've been over those before, though. Polarization looks to be increasing with younger cohorts, however.

I drunk what:what do you suppose those numbers would actually look like if i were to tell you that of group X, only 20% of those that claim to be X actually are...?

If you're referring to the fraction of those without religious affiliation who still have belief in God, or the ones who don't have a belief in God but still have religious affiliation, both tend to be relatively poor, stupid, and ill-educated compared to the religious theists, who in turn tend that way compare to the irreligious nontheists.

Otherwise, the first question is what basis you use to identify the 20%.